A category people are having increasing difficulty recognizing (or people who have difficulty recognizing it are increasingly in my orbit)
I don’t buy that. They must have noticed the lack of people walking each other on leases in the mall no matter how little thought they give to doing it at home.
I’m not saying they were wrong to do it*, but they have to have known it would get a reaction, even if that wasn’t specifically the intent.
*Though I’m somewhat undecided on that, along the lines of what BigT said. Is this “sex”? Does it have the characteristics of sex that lead to the (social, if not legal) prohibition on “having sex” in public? I don’t se why anyone is obligated to pretend to have a normative relationship in public. Can people bring their RealDolls to the mall? Is this any worse than that?
There’s an awful lot of air between “it’s normal” and “people shouldn’t do it” (as well as between “people mustn’t do it in public” and “it is necessary to explain it to small children in lurid detail”); I can disagree with the latter without having to embrace the former.
(I know, I know.)
Come to think of it, I don’t see the harm in kids finding out about Folsom.
Don’t laws about child pornography in at least some jurisdictions say that nudity is not required? I realize that’s a different situation, but it means that it is accepted that someone can be doing something sexual while fully clothed.
As I suppose it would also be easy enough to pass by the 2 girls 1 cup girls and say, “some folks have really weird tastes, Billy.”?
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? You’d rather be exposed to repulsive behavior with no legal recourse in public areas typically regarded as family-safe areas just to protect…what, exactly? Freedom to be exceptionally repulsive in front of you and your kids?
You don’t have to negate the constitution just to change some antiquated obscenity law that didn’t have the foresight to include treating people like beasts of burden or eating excrement in public. Tweak the law.
Not yet. But an argument can be made that treating a woman like a dog in public is just as repulsive, if not more so, than ingesting excrement. Can’t the hypothetical be extended to include various fetishes on the spectra?
My response would be “Yawn. Two newbies trying to freakout the squares.”
But, I agree with Macca26 that it wasn’t necessarily sexual behavior. For the couple in question, the leash and collar are their normal. It is what they accept, want and are used to. Going without the leash and collar may actually cause them distress. I am not being naive. I think in fact I understand this better than most people reading this thread.
I think what they did was and should remain legal. Banning every fetish would leave us incapable of doing anything. For example, I have a friend with a clown fetish. Do we ban all clowns?
I think the mall would be within its rights to ask them to leave.
This is ridiculous. Carrying excrement into the mall would already be against mall rules. Further, the woman (and it ain’t always the woman who is the sub) in question WANTS to be treated like a dog.
ETA
Scumpup I fail to see what skin color has to do with this.
I suspect if it had been a white man leading a black person around on a leash, the Dopers would be far less sanguine than when it is just two ugly white folks.
I’d only be uncomfortable if race was part of their dynamic. I feel confident in saying that most doms/dommes are colorblind. OTTOMH The only exception that leaps to mind is a group of Black Hebrews (They believe that Africans are the true Jews of the Bible and that an evil group of white Europeans has pulled a fast one on the world) who said that while they would keep white slaves, they would only have sex with other black people.
Tibby Or Not Tibby Yes, I do. Younger kids will think it’s just adults playing dress up. Older kids will likely understand that it’s grown ups doing some weird sex thing.
A clown stole my sense of fun, that’s who. A beady-eyed, whiskey-breathed, body-odored, puss-oozing, rancid toothed clown with big feet and a tiny hat stole my sense of humor many years ago. Why do you ask?
I agree that burqas carry an immense societal pressure.
But in this leash case, the immense societal pressure is against the practice. This, combined with the woman’s assurance that she sought out someone with whom to behave thusly, suggests that her actions are not coerced.
If this is insufficient, it seems to me you’re infantalizing anyone who practices this kind of lifestyle by refusing to accept their ability to freely consent to it. What evidence of freedom from coercion would satisfy you?